November 6, 2008

In the wake of the "yes" vote on California's Proposition 8, Glenn Greenwald urges congressional Democrats to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. [Correction: I wrote "no" before. "No" lost. I meant "yes." Sorry for the confusion.]

Barack Obama has, on numerous occasions, emphatically expressed his support for repealing DOMA. When he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, he wrote a letter to Chicago's Windy City Times, calling DOMA "abhorrent" and its repeal "essential," and vowing: "I opposed DOMA in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor." But he went on to cite what he called the "the realities of modern politics" in order to proclaim (accurately) that DOMA's repeal at that time -- 2004 -- was "unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress." After Tuesday, that excuse is no longer availing.

Democrats have a particular responsibility to erase the stain of DOMA. It was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA into law....

This would be a vital step that Democrats could take quickly and easily. But are they likely to do so?

No, because they're not stupid and they want to stay in power. That's my answer. Here's Greenwald's:

The conventional Beltway wisdom has already ossified, quite predictably, that Obama and the Democrats must scorn "the Left" and, despite polling data showing widespread support for equal rights for same-sex couples, such a move would be deemed by Beltway media mavens as coming from "the Left." Nancy Pelosi is running around decreeing that "the country must be governed from the middle," while Harry Reid emphasizes that Democrats have received no mandate from the election. And, most significantly of all, Democrats are being told they must avoid the "overreaching" of Clinton's first two years, defined by his attempt to eliminate the ban on gay people serving in the military -- something likely to scare Democrats from touching any gay issues.

Combine all that with the fact that only a small minority is actually affected by DOMA's injustices, that many Democrats will insist none of this is worth the "risk," and that many Obama supporters will refuse to criticize anything he does (marvel at the number of commenters here saying that Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff is right because . . . it is Obama's choice -- just look at this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this). Even as leading Democrats flamboyantly condemn Proposition 8, and even with Obama's long record of emphatically vowing that he will support DOMA's repeal, there will be very strong currents pushing Democrats to do nothing.

Greenwald, who surely must be paid by the word, never answers his own yes-or-no question. He goes on to express his desire for a repeal. But I think if he were honest and straightforward and remembered his own question, he'd say what I said: No, because they're not stupid and they want to stay in power.

IN THE COMMENTS: Dody Jane says:

They should repeal it. They should be who they whisper they are. They have the power now. They should do it. I am sick of tippy toeing. They way I look at it, my daughter's generation will eventually get aroud to it in 20 years anyway. It is inevitable. It is a liberal issue, liberals have the power now, liberals need to be big boys and as NIKE would say, just do it.

ADDED: Greenwald adds an update that links to this post:

Simply reciting trite conventional wisdom from the TV is easy, particularly for those capable of nothing else, but that practice is exactly what has produced the last eight years.

Glenn, my observation was that you failed to answer your own question. I didn't watch that on TV. I read your post. I'd like to see you face up to your own question. I think you don't because I'm right and you know that the Democrats -- out of perceived self-interest -- are unlikely to repeal DOMA. So I will renew my accusation that you are dishonest. You're also verbose as hell: reciting trite conventional wisdom ... easy. Bleh. I think you are taking the easy way out, beginning by not editing tiresome redundancies out of your posts. Instead of assuming that something you don't want to deal with came from television and that things from television can be ignored and that things that are well-known aren't worth thinking about, you should answer the question -- which was your own damned question. You asked whether the Democrats are likely to repeal DOMA. I don't like DOMA either, but I know and I think you know that the answer to your question is no. Be honest and say it clearly and move on.

136 comments:

It's time for the democratic party to stop throwing gays and lesbians under the bus. While I agree with Ann on the unlikelihood of any action any time soon, I wish it weren't the case. It's morally repugnant.

The verdict on this is out, but will be answered in due time. My guess, and the main reason I did not vote for Obama, is that the Dems will not govern from the center, but from the far left. People like Greenwald will always over-reach. I think the current Dems in leadership will also.

For those of you who read my previous comment: nevermind. :( When I first saw the exit polls the numbers didn't seem to add up right, and I felt that they incorrectly stated that whites didn't vote for the proposition.

However, I've found the final exit polls, and they do add up properly. Those exit polls show whites and asians voted against it 49-51, blacks for it 70-30, hispanics 53-47, and "other" 51-49.

On the other hand, the sample size was only 2240 people---about 1411 of them white. The margin of error is probably a couple of points either way. So it really isn't fair to conclude with certainty that whites voted against the measure. It is probably more accurate to say that they were split nearly evenly.

With the country fighting two wars and facing a depression, I certainly hope the Democrats put gay rights at the top of their agenda, and keep it there for four years. Because a) it will help prevent them from doing serious damage to something important, and b) it would make it easy for McCain to win a rematch in 2012. Hell, it would make it easy for McCain's dog to win in 2012.

I think the gays (that includes me, of course) need to do more to engage the other side instead of the legal and legislative maneuvering, which just looks like political trickery to people who really have zero acquaintaince with us aside from what they've been told by non-disinterested parties. It won't bring everyone over to our side, but it will make a huge difference.

We've come so far. It was not that long ago that San Francisco voted against granting the barest rights of domestic partnership. (i.e., Proposition S, back in 1989 or 1990). Two days ago, the *entire state* narrowly declined to grant *marriage* rights. It's a huge improvement, to put it mildly.

If the Democrats want to do something for gays in the US, they could modify the UCMJ to get rid of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. I think times have changed enough that this one would go down relatively easy.

Though the poor schlubs in Basic may not appreciate this. Telling the Drill Sergeant you're gay is about the only reliable way to get sent home left. I'm pretty sure at least some percentage of discharged gay Arab translators Andrew Sullivan cares so deeply about were just trying to avoid the stop-loss.

If the Democrats want to do something for gays in the US, they could modify the UCMJ to get rid of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell.

Sure, if they want to get off on the same bumbling foot as the Clintons did. Then perhaps Michelle could hole up in her Fortress of Solitude and come up with a universal health care plan.

Or maybe they could learn from the Clintons' mistakes and set a rational priority list. I would address the impending economic meltdown first. Maybe how we get troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. Stuff like that.

Gay is the new black on the "let us take your votes for granted" chain gang.

Greenwald is advocating not just an overreach, but an over-reach-around. Nothing new there, though.

mcg, I'm trying to follow your bons-mots of analysis, but you're all over the map:

"Those who said "Strongly favor" voted for Prop 8 66-34. Those who said "somewhat favor", "somewhat oppose", and "strongly oppose" voted against it 49-51, 41-59, and 26-74, respectively."

you quote Strongly favor as "for", but all others "against"; you did the same thing in the post above this one. Seems like those "somewhat favor/oppose" and "strongly oppose" were "for it" 51-49, 59-41 and 74-26 by what you wrote, which means those strongly favoring offshore drilling are less against gay marriage than those strongly opposed to offshore drilling. If that's supposed to be significant of something, pray tell.

A little consistency would make these posts easier to follow, assuming there is a point to the presentation of the data; as it is presented, the information is pretty useless. If that's what the crosstabbed poll you're cribbing from actually says, then it's to blame for rendering itself worthless.

I guess I am more interested in how Obama is going to spin his refusal to push this. He characterized the DOMA as repugnant, and now he won't do anything about it? Surely he also knows that he can't wake the sleeping lion on abortion — lots of folks were happy to leave that ideological beast alone to vote for Hope 'n' Change — but how is going to square dropping that hot potato with his insistence that he would push for the Freedom of Choice Act?

I see Clintonesque coming. I hope the Obamafolks are ready when it arrives.

The California judges(appointed republicans) did this intentionally to set up gay marriage as an issue in the election. It did not work how they hoped it would(help McCain in California).

The will of the people can't be overturned by judges or the people get angry. They did, and voted for the prop.

My area is being engulfed by this issue, and I have a very unpopular opinion on it. I was against the prop and voted against it, the people have decided differently and for now we have to live with it.

Leave it alone for now, it will happen in time. Let the people decide.

Why do democrats have to self-destruct just like republicans. Cool it.

Discarding the numbers, the points were this:--- whites and Asians voted against Prop 8, though narrowly, within the margin of error. All other races voted for it.--- those who strongly favor offshore drilling voted for Prop 8. All other categories voted against it.

Never underestimate the hubris of a politician, particularly after being handed a landslide election.

I guess I am more interested in how Obama is going to spin his refusal to push this.

If you listened to his acceptance speech he already has. Probably can't get everything done in the first term. Economy is the pressing issue, along with the middle class rescue plans and Iraq and Afghanistan. Greenwald and his friends will have to just take a number and wait thier turn. In the meantime while Obama is healing the planet, I'm sure something will come up that takes priority over DOMA.

I keep hearing the refrain "get more troops into Afghanistan" I don't think that means what you think it means.

We will need to "nation build" in Afghanistan after securing as large a foothold as possible for local government. We don't do that well. Stabilizing and democratizing Afghanistan will require an expensive, decades long effort similar to the Marshall Plan.

We no longer have the will or attention span necessary for such an undertaking. Our politicians will declare success within a limited military goal, call it good and bug out.

Perhaps that is the best we can do realistically. It isn't our responsibility to rescue those who do not want rescuing, is it?

Gay rights are a suckers game.Obama is not a sucker, Obama plays suckers.

If I had to guess, I'd say that he's likely to repeat Clinton's strategy of pursuing relentlessly anti-gay legislation while occasionally saying something nice to pull the wool over the eyes of the easily/willingly fooled.

On the other hand, Obama reminds me uncomfortably of the few real, total, psycho sociopaths I've known and one of their distinctive features is that you never know what they'll say or do next (it took me a while to realize they don't either, they just want to get through the moment, they'll deal with the next moment when it arrives).

But legal maneuvering has been the ONLY way that any group has ever gained rights.

The 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 21st, 24th, and 25th amendments were passed democratically, as were the various state and federal Civil Rights Acts. So your claim that legal maneuvering is the only way any groups has ever gained rights is embarrassingly wrong.

Put another way, if you put segregation to a vote right now, I'm sure it would win in a few states.

If Obama is a student of recent history (if) he will repeal DOMA, but not right away, and probably in bits and pieces. Clinton's HUGE mistake when he took office was to barge in and try to make this massive change... as his very fors policy initiative. It backfired and set the tone for the rest of his presidency.

They won't. They wouldn't want to lose the black evangelical vote and others in their base. That's pretty simple.

The same people who elected The One (PBUH) in California, also voted to pass a ban on gay marriage. The Missouri Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage passed with 70% of the vote during a Democrat primary in 2004. You do the math.

On Afghanistan.There might be some Afghanis who would like to move their country into the 21st century (hell by Afghan standards the 18th century would be progress). Unfortunately they're a minority with no influence and are outnumbered by thugs/maniacs with machine guns.

Two data points (make of them what you will):1. In the communist period (starting in the 60's or 70's) a number of Warsaw pact countries gave a lot of Afghans university scholarships. All the Afghans in Eastern Europe during the Russian invasion were firmly on the Soviet's side. Not because they were communists or pro-Russian (they had first hand experience of just how screwed up communism was) but because the Soviets seemed to be trying to bring some sort of (very imperfect) civilization (including education and industrialization) to Afghanistan as they had to Central Asia. How fucked up does a place have to be to make the 70's USSR look like progress? Even Ralph 'blood and guts' Peters has written that the Soviets were fundamentally on the right side in Afghanistan and that US uncritical support of the rebels was not a wise move.

2. In the early 90's I knew some Afghans who had studied/were studying in Poland. One hadn't heard from his family in months (he said they had 'gone to the mountains' in the latest civil unrest). He wasn't that worried since they knew how to take care of themselves but he despaired for his country. For too many Afghans, war wasn't a disruption of the daily routine it was their preferred mode of existence. Not much thought was given to which side would/could win and what would happen, they just enjoyed the shooting and killing (and getting shot at and made into martyrs) in and of itself. War for them wasn't goal oriented it was process oriented. He was a little drunk when he said this but none of his countrymen disagreed at all.

At present trying to nation-build in Afghanistan is enabling behavior, like the sober spouse who cleans up alcoholic spouse's behavior.

Bambi at Saddleback: Obama: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ... it’s also a sacred union. You know, God’s in the mix.. But...

If the Democrats want to do something for gays in the US, they could modify the UCMJ to get rid of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. Sorry, DADT is part of legislation passed by Congress. I think it was in the Defense Authorization Act. In addition, the UCMJ also punishes sodomy in an equal opportunity fasion. It also punishes adultery. bottom line. Screwing anyone accept a spouse of opposite sex will get you in trouble: (Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.)

The 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 21st, 24th, and 25th amendments were passed democratically, as were the various state and federal Civil Rights Acts. So your claim that legal maneuvering is the only way any groups has ever gained rights is embarrassingly wrong.

I see the point you're trying to make, but if you're being fair you have to admit that some of those amendments were fairly useless until they were litigated.

I said in another thread that I already have a sense of gays being thrown under the bus again as the Democrats rise to power. All the gay people voted for the Democrats and helped them get to where they are now, but we're unlikely to get anything in return. And many of the people who voted for Prop 8 are the same ones who voted for Obama. That's the problem with an interest group having unconditional love for one political party.

I think there's a significant chance that they'll repeal part of DOMA. This was what Hillary suggested doing, and I bet a lot of Democrats also think this is a good idea. The idea is to repeal the part that eliminates federal rights for married gay couples, but keep the part that says a state that doesn't have gay marriage doesn't need to recognize a gay marriage from that happened in another state. There's a good argument that this is the best step in the interest of gay marriage, because it would be much harder to make state-by-state progress on the issue if one state having it meant that the entire country, in effect, had gay marriage.

As a Christian — he is a member of the United Church of Christ — Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman exclusively, according to these supporters and Obama campaign advisers. While he does not favor laws that ban same-sex marriage, and has said he is “open to the possibility” that his views may be “misguided,” he does not support it and is not inclined to fight for it, his advisers say."

Is just saying that he doesn't support them enough? Do his followers believe him?

Proposition 8 passed because of high voter turnout among blacks. That's simple reality; you can accept it, or not. Put another way, if only white people (religious and otherwise) had showed up to vote last Tuesday, gay marriages would still be legally recognized in California.

Blame it on religious people, they are behind it.

This may come as a shock to you, but "black people" and "religious people" aren't two separate and distinct groups. Why do you think all the well-known black civil rights leaders are religious leaders too? Did you think it was just a coincidence?

Let's see, California, one of the three most liberal states in the union, just voted down gay marriage. So the Democrats should override what the people of the nation think and institute it anyway? That makes sense.

And by the way, I don't think this is an issue where we should "let the people decide." The majority shouldn't have the right to vote to oppress the minority. That's not the American way.

But how do we decide what rights are exempt from majority manipulation? For better or worse, this country lives or dies on majority rule. Even if a law is unconstitutional, there is the avenue of constitutional amendment. In the end, the will of the people, if sufficiently strong, can prevail over any legislative or judicial decision.

This is one of the problems, really, with setting the bar at only 50% to amend the California constitution. I think it ought to be harder to accomplish than that, as it is with the U.S. constitution.

I am sorry but as a gay I have no doubt that the black whether religious or not is more anti-gay than the white.

On the other hand, as a participant in sex with the black, they have a higher probability than the white to do the down low with the gay. The gay and the black (who is supposedly not gay) have a lot of gay sex.

What mcg said. Any legal issue can be framed in terms of "rights"; you need a theory that explains which rights are protected from infringement, even if the majority wants it, and which ones aren't. Maybe Mr. Cohen has a theory, but he hasn't explained.

I have a theory, but it isn't very interesting in jurisprudential terms, because it says that the rights protected against majority rule are the ones that the elite thinks should be so protected. So there is a sociological question about what rights the elite privileges at any given moment, but nothing susceptible to legal analysis.

I see the point you're trying to make, but if you're being fair you have to admit that some of those amendments were fairly useless until they were litigated.

Well, no. The litigation was fairly useless until there existed a legal basis for asserting certain rights, e.g. a black man's right to vote. If the earlier amendments hadn't passed, the litigation of the 50s and 60s would have gone nowhere. The litigation was to force the government to recognize EXISTING legal rights -- not to invent new ones out of whole cloth!

The courts exist to protect rights, not to create rights. The problem with the gay marriage lawsuits is that the notion that there is an existing right to government recognition of a marriage between two men (or two women) is patently ridiculous.

"Though blacks and Latinos combined make up less than one-third of California’s electorate, their opposition to same-sex marriage appeared to tip the balance. Both groups decisively backed Obama regardless of their position on the initiative.

Don D. Buchwald, the court-appointed lawyer for Ashley Alexandra Dupré, a prostitute Mr. Spitzer met in Washington on Feb. 13, said, “Ashley is pleased that this matter, is now, like the former governor previously was, behind her.”

"Though blacks and Latinos combined make up less than one-third of California’s electorate, their opposition to same-sex marriage appeared to tip the balance. Both groups decisively backed Obama regardless of their position on the initiative.

It's really simple. People aren't ready for the government to recognize same-sex marriages. When they are, it will happen. Since they're not, it would be political suicide to force the issue. Obama's a lot of things, but not dumb, and not likely to squander precious political capital on this.

In the mean time, as much as people want to argue differently, there's nothing separate but equal. Gay people are free to marry in private. They are also free to enter into any marriage that the state will recognize.

It will be very interesting to see how much Obama wants to escalate in Afghanistan.

The NY Times reported about a week ago that the Pentagon was briefing his and McCain's campaign on the horrible situation there. Essentially, the war will be lost if a brand-new policy is not in place immediately on Jan. 20.

Bush is already planning to send in an additional 15,000 troops. This would raise US force levels to about 45,000 men, not counting about 30,000 allied troops also there.

The Russians had a peak of 300,000 troops in Afghanistan during their 10 year war. We've been there eight years. And the harder we fight the more we anger the Pakistani government and its people.

If Pres. elect Obama wants to do community development, Afghanistan is the place to do it with tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of volunteers, sewer diggers, teachers, veterinarians, and soldiers. Draft, anyone?

Smiling Jack - I certainly hope the Democrats put gay rights at the top of their agenda, and keep it there for four years. Because a) it will help prevent them from doing serious damage to something important, and b) it would make it easy for McCain to win a rematch in 2012.

McCain has about as much chance of getting the Republican nomination in 2012 as Jimmy Carter had of getting a "rematch" against Reagan in 1984.

**********Any discussion of Greenwald writing on gay issues should mention he is just another gay liberal Jewish lawyer - albeit a little more exotic than his standard NYC ACLU peers because he prefers dining on Brazil nuts.

That he wants DOMA repealed and transvestites allowed to serve in the Brazilian military is no shock.

marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

See, marriage has a meaning. Like the word dog does not mean cat. And I agree that religious people are in large part responsible for the defense of marriage. We like marriage, we try to be good at it, and our religious tomes define it.

I will vote for civil unions that are equivalent to marriage in a heartbeat. You guys and gals just need to come up with a snappy new name for it: Gay Union, Sameiage, Homojoinious, Sappicalicious, Love Shacking, egiarram. I don't know, nothing is coming to me at this moment.

But marriage is taken.

Come on Althousians, we need a new name for when gay folks fall in love and get hitched.

"All the gay people voted for the Democrats and helped them get to where they are now."

Not me!

Unfortunately the rest of Christopher's observation is all too true. Gays have a faith-based assumption that the Democratic party is the Force of Good and will thus bestow gay marriage on us all. How pathetic. The Dems reap guaranteed votes and substantial fund-raising from the gay community and deliver nothing but a few platitudes in return.

That said, nothing could give me greater pleasure than a sudden quixotic lurch to the left by the Dems. If they unmask too soon, we'll be spared much of O's messianic agenda. The loss of the symbolic blessings of gay marriage would be a small price to pay for that.

On the other hand, Obama reminds me uncomfortably of the few real, total, psycho sociopaths I've known and one of their distinctive features is that you never know what they'll say or do next (it took me a while to realize they don't either, they just want to get through the moment, they'll deal with the next moment when it arrives).

I think Michael Farris's comment is right on the money. Obama is amoral. He fills his speeches with so many weasel words he can always point to something when challenged. Something like, "I've always said..." or, "I've always believed..." is sure to be heard over the next four years when he has to piss off some group who thought he was the second coming.

"No stickler for consistency." That's what George Will called him, and I'll bet his presidency will be all over the place on one issue after another.

They should repeal it. They should be who they whisper they are. They have the power now. They should do it. I am sick of tippy toeing. They way I look at it, my daughter's generation will eventually get aroud to it in 20 years anyway. It is inevitable. It is a liberal issue, liberals have the power now, liberals need to be big boys and as NIKE would say, just do it.

Trooper York said... "I did not break the vow. The vow only applied until the end of September."One of my clients who reads this blog got married this June. His wife caught him banging his secretary. He tried your line

Some suggestions are a virtual book club, a food section, a doggy picture page, more sex, less politics, pictures of commenters breasts and hogs-we could have contests-who's hog picture matches which commenter. Games in general would be a welcome addition. It's time to mix it up.

Currently, I am watching William Macy's fine performance in David Mamet's Edmond. The movie charts the odyssey of a repressed businessman who gives in to his inner demons on a nighmarish journey through Manhattan's sleazy underworld.

I just saw a snippet of Edmond, a snippet of Macy at what I guess was a whorehouse and there was the obligatory pan across several whores twisting their hair and giving come-fuck-me looks. There must be some law that you have to have that scene in whorehouse depictions.

I have enough money to either buy a Bushmaster rifle or pay this month's mortgage. Which should I spend my money on?

Basically Dody wants the Democrats to spend the most political capital to benefit their smallest constituency. That makes no sense, given the Log Cabin Republicans and the many gays uninterested in getting married.

Gays are under the bus right now. Let Obama build up his muscles before he tries to lift the bus off.

Greenwald replied to you, saying that you just recite "trite conventional wisdom from the TV". What say you, Ann Althouse? Greenwald does have a point that there can be a compromise by repealing Section 3, and he does have a point that we've come a long way since 1994.

Abolish DOMA -- it's a vicious, hateful law that may not mean much to straights but to gays is a daily slap in the face. No federal benefits? No ability to be united with a foreign partner? I'm not prepared to wait another four years hanging on a tenuous promise.

My partner and I, after 20 years together, have a house and a vacation condo, 2 BMWs, and a collection of original artworks. We aren't groaning beneath the yoke of oppression just because our relationship isn't called "marriage."

Some day somebody can write a nice paper about how the black civil rights movement got everything it wanted, and the gay marriage movement didn't, because one targeted public opinion and a series of presidents, and the other tried to short-circuit things by going through the courts.

If the black civil rights movement had worked like the gay marriage one, they'd still be trying to get enough states to pass a Constitutional amendment revoking the previous amendment establishing the right to segregation, passed in 1959.

Repeal the act? For cryin' out loud, we've voted on it twice now and it won both times. Don't we get any say in the way our state is run or are we just overgrown children who need the politicians to make our decisions for us?

I think they should but they won't, because they are only pretending to care about that stuff. They think they will lose votes over it in future elections, so they won't do it. They will just string gay people along forever.

I wish they would. It would probably be the one libertarian thing they would ever do.

With all due respect, rich gays like you sat on your hands and let Prop 8 succeed. And I might add, if your partner were a foreigner, you'd be driving your BMW in a foreign land because he would not be allowed to come to the USA. DOMA may not affect you because you don't need benefits or immigration help, but there are loads of gays who need this resolved, and desperately so.

@ paul a'barge -

You are living in the Rovian "permanent Republican majority" past. If you think gays can be used as a wedge issue to make voters forget what your party did to our country, think again.

I understand that the truth is painful to some but the fact is, those two demographics have been historically intolerant of the gay community.

Nonono... only the eville xians are intolerant! Its funny how the only bigotry that is actively encouraged is bigotry against Christians. Go to any liberal group and you'll find rabid and disgusting Christian bashing as a pretty regular thing.

Okay on topic. I really hope that the Democratic congress strongarms Obama to make Gay marriage legal. Its something I support, and I would like for Democrats to actually live up to their promises to gays someday. Liberals love to bash Bush for a lot of reasons, but if Bush had made promises to gays like this, he'd suck it up and make gay marriage legal and pay the price, because he thought it was the right thing to do. For Democrats it always seems like political expediency wins over doing the right thing, because they don't want to pay the price.

" I already have a sense of gays being thrown under the bus again as the Democrats rise to power." -- Christopher Althouse Cohen

Why not?

Hitler did it after he rose to power.

Regards,

Chuck(le)P.S. And if anyone wants to complain about the 'Hitler-comparison Card', I'll remind them that (1) the so-called 'progressives' did it about President Bush (43) and (2) compare and contrast IS a legit form of debate.

This is the sort of mindless identity political thinking that I generally despise from the Democrats. Many people, including myself, oppose gay marriage for completely non-religious reasons.

Despite the relatively recent (in terms of human history) popularity of equating marriage with romatic love, generally the institution of marriage has been focused on the creation of a new distinct family and raising children to continue society. In my libertarian opinion, this function is much more important and deserving of government attention than "recognizing a loving, committed relationship." An undeniable biological fact is that unless they take steps to prevent it most heterosexual couples will produce children while no homosexual couple ever will.

My oposition has nothing to do with religion, oppression, discrimination or even the "ick" factor, but simply utilitarianism. The interest in government recognition of marriage is continuation of society and the vast majority of gay relationships do not directly apply to this end.

My partner and I, after 20 years together, have a house and a vacation condo, 2 BMWs, and a collection of original artworks. We aren't groaning beneath the yoke of oppression just because our relationship isn't called "marriage."

Congratulations to you and your partner. 20 years in a committed loving relationship is an admirable and enviable thing. I applaud your sensible attitude and your achievements. I imagine that you both would be a welcome addition to any social gathering or dinner party, unlike some of the rabid gay rights posters who frequent this site who seem to see the world through a prism of bile and victimhood.

Thank you!! An issue that transcends gender, sexual orientation, race and religion. Perhaps we would all be better off if we concentrated on issues that are of real importance to the health and welfare of the nation.

Gay people who seek equality are not "rabid." There may be some who are extremists, but most people just want the same rights as everyone else. Obama's policies are also important, no question, and I will be the first to criticize him if he launches into vast big-government schemes and so on. But try to imagine living as a gay person, actively denied the federal benefits, legal protections and immigration rights as straight people. I think, if you had kindness and empathy in your heart, you'd sing a different tune.

I never said they were. Some of the posters on this site who are gay advocates are rabid and despicable. Others are reasonable and present good arguments. The rabid and bitter proponents do your cause no good whatsoever and actually turn people against your cause. Downtownlad is one of the worst.

But try to imagine living as a gay person, actively denied the federal benefits, legal protections and immigration rights as straight people.

None of these issues are solved by forcing a change in the definition of marriage. The reversal of Prop 22 by the Calif courts and the passage of Prop 8 do nothing whatsoever to change Federal Benefits, the legal protections and equality of domestic partnerships to marriage (already provided by the State of California) or Federal Immigration Policy.

On the State level in California at least, you have equality. The Federal level is another thing.

I rarely agree with Michael, but this posting of his is quite correct:

"Some day somebody can write a nice paper about how the black civil rights movement got everything it wanted, and the gay marriage movement didn't, because one targeted public opinion and a series of presidents, and the other tried to short-circuit things by going through the courts."

I have all the sympathy in the world for people who feel oppressed and who are working responsibly to change their oppressed status. I have no sympathy for people who are vitriolic like DTL and who want to cram their agenda down my throat.

Even though they may have been ambivilant about same sex marriage,many who voted yes on 8 did so because of the resentment of the Courts constantly overturning their votes and overstepping the percieved boundaries of what courts are supposed to do.

I'm a woman and a feminist and have zero sympathy with aggressive man hating feminism either. They also do their/my cause no good and are an impediment to actual progress.

Gays thrown under and women shoved to the back of the bus was SOP during this election. Yet both aggrieved groups lined up in the tens of millions to pull the lever for Democrats.

Unfortunately for many of the traditional Democrat interest groups, tens of millions of newly enrolled and politically activated Hispanic voters are socially conservative and have been converting to evangelical churches in droves for the past twenty years. They are not aligned with the progressive social agenda.

Very soon Hispanics will be the majority voter demographic in CA, which is the 800 lb electoral college gorilla. The Democrat Party must retain their vote to remain in power, so many of their traditional constituencies will be marginalized and/or quietly neglected between elections. They have no where else to go.

SF Bay Area may be the center of CA radical activism, sexual politicas and progressive thought, but LA has the population muscle and how they vote, so goes the state.

California's population and geographical disparity has been a bone of contention since the 1850's and erupts periodically over issues. A partition movement emerged from The Central Valley Project in the 40's and again as recently as '92. It's not as loony as it's been made out to be. Many Californians, especially those who have been in state for generations, are often ripe for the picking by culturally driven initiatives. We are not of one mind and never have been.

Will progressive vs socially conservative Democrats eventually force a split in the state or will Hispanics be assimilated into the progressive culture quickly enough to prevent a political schism in California?

I think we will see a similar cultural divide in Arizona as liberal Californians migrate to AZ and begin to control the urban vote. It's a natural progression as one voter block supersedes another.

The GOP didn't handle the transition from red to blue CA very well; alienating moderates and driving the state further into the blue.

How will the Dems handle the emerging cultural dichotomy among their voting blocks? Interesting times ahead.

Don't ruin his delusions about the "white devil" be all that is evil in the world.

chuck b:

And don't forget, if you go back to 1986, it was politically advantageous for the Italian Roman Catholic, Nancy Pelosi, to chastise her opponent in the democratic primary by referring to him as the "gay socialist".

Sounds like you need to read your Joan Didion....'Where I Was From' 2003.

This has nothing to do with ideology. It's strictly a socio-economics and class thing.

In California, the Gay Rights Movement is essentially a white, educated, upper class thing, and it transcends right wing/left wing politics.

People in conservative Palos Verdes will align with the movement....because even though Palos Verdes is conservative Republican....they are educated and wealthy. Isn't that where Judge Kozinsky (the porn guy) lives ? Same thing with wealthy Orange County coast and much of Ventura County.

Southern California is filled with these pockets of educated, evolved Conservatives who would be a natural alliance.

I'm not talking the white trash pick-up truck in the driveway, red-necky Conservatives (lots of those neighborhoods in So. California) .....I'm talking people like Kozinsky in the tidy suburban neighborhoods, who just want to be left alone. ---These well-to-do Libertarians who see nonsense like Prop. 8 as nothing but Busybody legislation.

The Gay Rights Movement ignores these natural allies, and instead campaigns in the most diametrically opposed demographics.

Dust Bunny Queen, you would do well to read up on the psychology and feminist writings on internalized oppression. Calling those who are louder than you, point out oppression more than makes you comfortable, etc "rabid" or blaming them for their own oppression is classic internalization. It has been documented in every movement.

TJL is clearly a white male wealthy partnered individual who has experienced a lot of privileges in his time and doesn't see how DOMA affects others and how he might want to care even if he himself is riding high. Just because YOU aren't daily experiencing (noticeable) oppression doesn't mean it isn't weighing heavily on others of us.

Why don't we just do away with government marriage, let people enter into the LEGAL contract of their choice (a civil union) and if desired go to a church or other non-government social institution for "marriage." Why should my money be paying for straight people's marriage privileges and my own oppression?